Conference kaosws::canada

    
    >>You want to prevent kids from starting
    >>to smoke, then up the legal smoking age, impose higher fines for stores
    >>that do sell cigarettes to underage, enforce it, and police it.  Better
    >>yet, educate kids early on in schools about the health hazards of
    >>smoking.
    
    Sorry Mario but all of the above has already been done.  
    
    You now must be 19 to buy cigarettes in Ontario (up from 16).  Every 
    store selling cigarettes in Ontario MUST have a sign posted that photo 
    id is required to buy cigarettes.  Fines have significantly been increased
    but I don't know if the policing has improved. 
    
    Every kid knows that cigarettes are detrimental to your health.  In the 
    Carleton Board of Education there is a program called the "VIP" program.  
    VIP stands for Values, Influence and Peers.  The program is run in 
    cooperation with the police.  Every child in grade 6 goes through the
    program. Tobacco usage and the dangers associated with it is part of the 
    curriculum.
    
    A few months ago, I caught my 13 year old daughter smoking.  She KNOWS
    that we don't approve.  My wife and I don't smoke. She KNOWS that 
    cigarettes are bad for your health.  I found out that she got the 
    cigarettes from a 14 year old friend.  This friend got them from her mom!!!
    The mother confirmed this! How do you police that! If mom smokes then it 
    must be ok to smoke! 
    
    As far as I'm concerned, if society wants to eliminate smoking (and I 
    believe that the majority of Canadians do) then it's hipocritical(sp?) to 
    take sponsorship money from tobacco companies for cultural or sporting 
    events.    
    
    You may remember a few years ago, some of Canada's downhill skiers
    refused to take part in an International event in Western Canada because 
    it was being sponsored by Export'A.  Somehow that event has since survived 
    with out tobacco advertising.
    
    I support the bill.
    
    Bernie. 

Bernie,

Do you think this bill will prevent your daughter's friend's mother
from giving her cigarettes and hence prevent cigarettes from being
passed on to your daughter?

/Mario

    butting  in... natural selection and hazards will take care of the mom
    in due time. We can only hope our kids have a little more sense when
    it comes to tobacco.
    brian (pack a day)

    No it won't Mario.  My point was that you suggested that education and
    tougher laws will prevent young people from smoking.  It won't.  I was 
    simply pointing out that what you suggested has already been done. 
    
    You used to swim competitively.  What would you think of a swim meet
    called "The Dumaurier Invitational"?  Do you think that this would be a
    positive thing for the sport of swimming?  Would you want your children
    to participate in such a meet?  
    
    I'm repeating myself but if society seriously wants to eliminate tobacco 
    usage then society should not take handouts in the form of sponsorships 
    from tobacco companies.  It's a matter of principle.
    
    Does the bill go to far?  Maybe!  Maybe the decision on accepting
    sponsorships from tobacco companies should be made be the organizing 
    commitees of these events.  Do you trust these commitees to make the
    right decision or do you think that they will be impressed by the
    dollars being offered?  Do you think that it's possible some of these 
    events are actually organized by tobacco companies to provide them an 
    advertising avenue under the guise of sponsorships? 
    
    The more I think about it, the more I support the bill.
    
    Bernie. 

    Brian, we all pay a  hefty price for that kind of natural selection.
    Now if we refuse to treat smoking related illness, then that would be a
    different story.

    Personally I don't know exactly what provisions are in the bill, but I
    do know I find the massive advertising campaign being mounted against
    it by the tobacco companies highly offensive.  The right to advertise
    dangerous drugs (like tobacco) is not an essential component of the
    "freedom of speech" we all prize, to my mind.
    
    -Stephen 

Bernie,

Your kids swim competitively right?  Let's say your kids start to
make it big in swimming.  They have a shot at Canadian-level, or
even International.

Du Maurier sponsors the National and pumps money into the sports
associations to develop coaches, swimmers and finance meets.  The
meet for is called Du Maurier National.  Your kid qualifies for it!!

If you disagree with the image it sends then there's nothing 
stopping you from pulling your kids out of it.  This is your
choice, we live in a free country.  You either let your kid go
or you tell them they can't.

If the event dies then let it die on it's own lack of merit if
athletes don't want to attend.  When this happens then that sends
me a message that our kids in general are getting the message.

The point I'm trying to make here is when governments start to
regulate as far as they're doing it with this legislation, then
it's something we all have to worry about.  What happens on the
day they discover the cost of alcohol abuse and alcoholism in
Canada.

Good-bye Hockey night in Canada and La Soiree du Hockey?

/Mario

    Just because tobacco dollars can't be used doesn't mean nobody else will
    be around to sponsor. There are billions of advertising dollars around.

Ok,

Now, you've lost the Canadian Grand-Prix in Montreal.  It used
to bring in $70M+ of badly needed money into the city.  It's
not an easy thing to bring back.  There are many countries just
waiting for the opportunity to take over.

Oh, and by the way, you can't watch the other 16 Grand-Prix events
on television either.


/Mario

    For your information,  the Canadian swimming bodies will not permit
    tobacco companies to sponsor swim meets.  I'm a member of Swim Ontario
    and the issue had been discussed.  I can guarantee you that one phone
    call to the tobacco companies would net us thousands of dollars in
    sponsorship.  If you're involved in competitive swimming you are by
    extension involved in fitness and there is no way that you could
    support tobacco usage.  It would be ludicrous for us to accept
    money from tobacco companies.   You can bet that swimmers would boycott
    the event just as Ken Reid boycotted the "Export 'A" event a few years
    back.  By the way,  he won the battle.  
    
    The last swimming Nationals were called "The Metropolitan Life National
    Championships".  Kind of ironic is'nt it that a company with a vested
    interest in keeping its customers away from cigarettes sponsored the
    event.
    
    As for the Grand Prix, it's too bad that Montreal lost it but there are
    things more important than money.  Health is one of them.  I do beleive
    that if there's money to be made (and there is!), the event will be
    back with different sponsorship.   As for the other events that can't
    be watched on TV, those who profit from such events will at one point
    have to decide between tv revenue and advertising revenue from tobacco
    companies.  It's one way of forcing their hands.
    
    Bernie.

    Re: A couple back...
    
    	Someone said maybe they should stop treating smoking related
    illnesses. First off smoking is LEGAL as is drinking, over-eating,
    stupidity, etc... I hear from non-smokers regularly the cost of
    treating smoke related illness and how they should not pay for it. Do
    we then stop treating obese people with heart problems? Maybe refuse
    treatment to drunk who falls and breaks their neck, or people with
    liver related problems. All these are lifestyle which if you do not
    enagage in will make you healthier. You can't differeniate between
    them. Remeber we have UNIVERSAL medicare.
    
    The Bill, I do not like it. Either ban smoking or butt out of the debate.
    This is the same government which reduced the price of smokes so 
    smugglers would stop taking a piece of the governments pie. What morals
    they have. The liberals have no problem with taking smoke related tax
    money but have one with sponsorship and advertising. I have no problems 
    with strict controls on usage and encouraging prevention, but limiting 
    advertising is not right. An easy way to help stop people from smoking 
    - jack the prices back up and give them some incentive to quit. Obviously,
    the educational programs are not working like they should. The best way to
    stop smoking is to ban it.
    
    Sean 

Bernie,

The swimming example was just an example.  I could have used
Tennis (du Maurier?).  Just because du Maurier sponsors the
event doesn't mean I won't get my kids involved in it.

Maybe I should clear up a fact here.  I totally agree with banning
tobacco advertising.  This is the way it used to be not too long
ago but then the Supreme court shot that down because it was
unconstitutional.  That's another issue.

What I disagree with is how far this bill goes.  Could we at least
have some exceptions like international events for example?  Could
there at least be a phase in period in order to give event 
organisers some time to find other sponsors?  This government wont
even consider it.  My right to watch what I want to watch on
television is being taken away because other people take up
smoking, even in other countries?

Get real!!

/Mario

    
    >> Could there at least be a phase in period in order to give event
    >> organisers some time to find other sponsors?
    
    The organisers knew that this was coming a long time ago.   It's been 
    talked about for some time now.  They should have acted right away but 
    instead of looking for new sponsors, they spent their time and energy 
    fighting the bill.  
    
    Anyways, there are more important things to get my shorts in a knot
    over than the right of tobacco companies to advertise.  
    
    Growing tobacco is a waste of good agricultural land.

    
    the bill doesn't take effect until 1999 so they have (another) 2 years
    to 'get ready'/find alternate sponsors.
    The tobacco advertising for the tennis tournaments represents 12% of
    their budget, no big deal.
    
    I'm with Bernie and his lack of knotted shorts on this one, we are
    talking about sports and tobacco advertising, not the biggest issue
    this week...

    The whole point of this debate _has_ to do with health costs associated
    with smoking. No amount of smoking is good for you, I doubt anyone
    would argue that point. The laws being passed are aimed at discouraging
    the use of tobacco products. To compare over eating/drinking to smoking
    is a red herring. We need to eat, and there is significant evidence to
    show that the consumption of alcohol can have a positive effect on
    health. Smoking is a habit that clearly has no health benefits, though
    some may argue it provides a certain amount of mental health. And
    there's the issue of second hand smoke. The health costs are the
    driving force for this legislation, the government can't make it
    illegal but they can try and make it less attractive.

    RE: -1
    
    Actually the legislation is to deter young people from taking up
    smoking, if you are an adult, you make your own decisions in life. Why
    is it when I was sixteen I was busted for having a six-pack (okay I did
    not run fast enough), but kids under 19 are not busted for smoking? Why
    won't the moralistic liberals enforce the law? 
    
    Things I agree with:
    
    Smoking is unhealthy and a highly addictive behaviour
    Smoking has no health benefits except in certain mentals disease -
    Schizophernia, dissocative disorders
    
    Now why you are wrong.
    
    Red Herring calling is stated by people who do not like the rational
    points of others and therefore try to sway the debate from the area of
    concern. 
    
    If a fat person has a heart attack we treat them, if they have another 
    we treat them, etc... Being fat is a lifestyle choice, overeating, eating 
    a high fat diet, and this will kill you eventually. We need to eat, so
    why am I not washing down milkshakes and BigMacs every hour? It is
    because I know they are bad for me, but there are millions of
    people who live this lifestyle. Excessive amounts of anything will kill
    you except for maybe sex. Again this has to do with lifestyle choices,
    like smoking
    
    What you fail to  grasp is that we are all going to die sometime, of 
    something. What you do to yourself is your own concern, what you do to 
    others is a concern to everyone. Hence, I do not want to see smoking in 
    public places, do it outside, in a smoke room, or in your own house.
    Enough of the second hand smoke debate. Bars are grey areas. 
    
    They stats are from the "The Cost of Substance Abuse in Canada", smoke
    these!
    
    Alcohol: Revenues: 10 Bil, Costs: 7.5 Bil. 6,701 lost their lives
    
    Tobacco: Rev. Government 7.196 Bil, Costs: 8 bil in which Health care 
    	     cost 2.67 bil, 33,498 deaths - directly/indirectly
    
    Illicit Drugs: Rev. ?  Costs: 1.37 bil. 732 deaths
    
    BTW You said " ... show that the consumption of alcohol can have a
    positive effect on health..." Wrong! That's a red herring (grin). It's
    moderate consumption for one thing. And any positive effect of alcohol 
    is greatly outweighed by it's social and economic costs. So stop
    throwing out these damn red herrings and get to the point.
    
    Sean
    
    
     

    As for charging the kids, they can't, according to my son who attended
    a mandatory presentation given by the OPP at his school.  Apparently
    it is not illegal for a minor to posess tobacco, it is only illegal
    to sell it to them.  Pretty stupid thinking, eh? 
    
    A couple of days ago there was an article in the Ottawa Citizen
    about a "poor" convenience store owner who went bankrupt because he
    was banned from selling tobacco products for six months.  He was 
    caught selling cigarettes to minors a second time.  If they were
    to put even a fraction of the recnet healthcare costs savings into 
    policing illegal tobacco sales they could solve the problem in a hurry.  
    
    This could even help with student unemployment.  I propose that
    they pay a bounty of say 25-50% of any fines collected for illegal 
    distribution to any minor that provides info leading to the conviction.
    
    Somebody else mentioned that the government can't make smoking illegal, 
    why not?  They control everthing else that that is consumed. If it's
    proven to or suspected of causing cancer or otherwise be bad for you 
    it is banned, take cyclamate for example and soon to be aspartame.
    
    
    Robin
    
    
    

    I think they would have to mandate tobacco (nicotine actually) to be a
    banned drug first which they are not about to do because it generates a
    lot of revenue in production and sales. Secondary costs are not
    factored in and are easily passed on to the next government. I don't
    think it will ever be illegal but they can actively discourage it from
    being acceptable. I think this approach is their/our best avenue. They
    have already made quite a bit of progress I think, if only in people's
    attitudes. A mere 15 years ago, I had an ashtray on my desk at work and
    it was not an unusual thing, there were no smoking rooms except maybe
    in hospitals that I can remember. There are teenagers out there now who
    would think both of those examples to be 'barbaric' and me to an old
    geaser to have taken part in them. I find quite a difference in
    attitudes about the acceptability of smoking, don't you?

    This is the first time I've ever heard that being fat is a lifestyle.
    For most it is a problem that they constantly battle for reasons beyond
    their control. Perhaps they will be able to get their dna resequenced
    and thus avoid Sean's broad brush.

    If I have a big mac, it is not going to hurt me. If I have a cigarette
    it will undoubtedly hurt me.

    If the guy sitting next to me has a bic mac, that will not hurt me. If
    the guy sitting next to me has a cigarette, it will hurt me.

    As for my statement about the health benefits of alcohol, there is some
    debate as to what moderate means. I read a recent paper showing that
    having 3 drinks a day is good for your heart. This is why I simply used the
    word consumption.

    40,000 deaths a year due to smoking vs. how many for their fat
    lifestyle? Hey, if you're born with a slow metabolism that's a big
    strike against you, but guess what? You don't have to smoke! What a
    bonus!

    Why don't we want kids to start smoking? Why do we want people to quit
    smoking? Because it's 100% bad for you.

    Governments also know that if you ban cigarettes, you only throw the
    money into the pockets of organized crime.

    I'm sure I wrote this in here before, but...
    
    - ban tabacco products (give farmers 20-30 years to find a new
    business)
    
    - ban tabacco advertising (give them a few years and MAYBE allow
    individuals or teams (like auto racing) to be sponsored, but absolutely
    not events)
    
    - inform everyone that in 20 to 30 years smoking related health
    problems will NOT be covered.
    
    Problem solved!

>>    - ban tabacco products (give farmers 20-30 years to find a new
>>    business)

I like that one.
    
>>    - ban tabacco advertising (give them a few years and MAYBE allow
>>    individuals or teams (like auto racing) to be sponsored, but absolutely
>>    not events)

I like that one too.  Remember though that the last tobacco advertising
law was struck down by the Supreme court.  Our infamous constitution gives
them the right to do it.  What will happen with this new law?  In a way
tobacco companies, by fighting the last law all the way to Supreme court
shot themselves in the foot.  Government comes in after with even stricter
rules.  Ironic.
    
>>    - inform everyone that in 20 to 30 years smoking related health
>>    problems will NOT be covered.

That's tough.  There are many smoking-related illenesses that can be had
by non-smokers.  Would you restrict them the right to health care?


Some debatable suggestions:

- Raise fines for retailers who sell to minors under 21.  I don't know
  what it is now but make it VERY high.

- Police it much more than currently and be very strict about it.

- Make it a criminal offence for kids under 21 to smoke and be caught in
  posession of cigarettes.

- Teach kids starting in Grade 1 about the side-effects of smoking and
  keep re-inforcing the message EVERY Year thereafter until the end of 
  high-school.  A 1-2 week blitz in Grade 6 is not enough.

How 'bout getting radical about this and punish the ones who do, and
not the ones who don't, like myself.

/Mario

    draconian.

    You must take into account that people smoke because they like it. If
    you ban it and make possession criminal, you put profits of cigarette
    sales into the hands of criminals and you glut our justice system with
    people who merely wanted a smoke.

    I wouldn't spend 10 cents on policing a ban - other than to prosecute
    advertisers.   I'd let the fear of no health coverage (for smoking
    related illnesses) work rather than police, fines, judges etc.
    
    I hadn't thought about second-hand smoke related illnesses - if someone
    could show (without a huge overhead) they didn't smoke (for some
    reasonable period of time), I'd look after them.  Clearly I beleive
    it's not difficult to identify real smokers - just ask them to breath
    on you !!!
    
    

    great debate. i personally would disallow health care to those
    individuals who own automobiles--seeing as how least aways--I smoke.
    many people who drive get far to out of shape, they complain about
    having to park more than 20m from the front door of Digital, etc. 
    ever see some people trying to get out of their cars? it's like come on
    buddy move your body every once in while. too many drivers are crusty
    impatient bastids, who care too little for either animals or people.
    if we're talking health risks here, lets throw a few more bones on the
    fire, no?

    re: .19
    
    >    Governments also know that if you ban cigarettes, you only throw 
    >    the money into the pockets of organized crime.
    
    and .22
    
    >    ...  ,you put profits of cigarette sales into the hands of criminals
    
    
    And just what do call the likes of Imperial Tobacco et al ???
      
    Or for that matter CIBC, TD Bank, Royal Bank, etc.....????
    
    
    The definition of crime all comes down to who carries the biggest
    stick.
    

    re: .24 I never thought of that! good one. People who drive cars also
      get into accidents and when I'm in the emergency room trying to get
      my smoke clogged lunks cleared, I have to give these people my
      stretcher.
     
     How did we get here? I thought the 'discussion' was about legislating
     tobacco advertising, not about paying for health care of people with
     questionable health habits, legal or not? Start a new thread for that
     one maybe?

Interesting development that I can see happening this morning:

I now do believe that the whole uproar about us losing the TV
rights to the 17 Formula 1 races this season was likely a
bluff perpetrated by Tobacco companies, and possibly exagerated
by Norman Legault, organiser of the Montreal Grand-Prix.  The whole
purpose of course was to get every fan so upset in order that they
put pressure on the government to waterdown the bill.

Government stuck to it's position and didn't budge.  The bill passed
yesterday.

This morning the organisers of the Montreal Grand-Prix are apparently
meeting and have a decision
to make.  Whether to go ahead and do whatever they need to do to so
that we do get the broadcasts, i.e. pay money to the F1 worldwide
organisers and the broadcasts happen, or pay no money at all, no
broadcasts of all 17 races and possibly cancel the Montreal GP.

I believe common sense, the former, will prevail.

If this happens then it will show that the government took a risk
in not budging 1 inch, and win in the end.

BTW, the bill doesn't go into effect until Oct 98.

/Mario

    Re: Health costs and a separate thread - get a grip!!!  The whole point 
    of the bill is health and associated costs.  You think the
    gov is just making law so we can discuss the grammar and hidden
    conspiracies...
    
    Re: Other "lifestyle" evils that kill people and costs money - big
    time red herring to raise these.  Smoking and related illness is far
    and away the #1 problem.  It is plain stupid to suggest you have to
    have a plan for every problem before you can attack the #1.  You're
    merely trying to deflect the truth - smoking kills and is totally
    indefensible!!!
    

    
    well I thought it might warrant another discussion because this one
    didn't start out to include whether or not we should pay to replace the
    lungs of smokers or not. I get easily confused. 
    
    I think they will end up with some sort of compromise with respect to
    the advertising/sponsorship, ie the John Players and Sons of the world
    will be able to sponsor individual cars but not the whole race.
    Otherwise, the law would probably infringe on some poor saps rights
    somewhere, this is Canada after all, lots of rights...

    Re. A couple back or so.
    
    
    	Okay, I should not have said Fat, because being fat is not always
    related to diet. I should have said High Fat diet! Something a whole
    lot of people are guilty of and this along with smoking are the number
    one killers of people. I posted the stats to show that smoking kills,
    and it is a dirty drug. Again, it is LEGAL, and if something is
    legal like drinking and eating 100 big macs (red herring time), then 
    the government has to accept the responsiblities of people using the 
    substance. Either do a full out assault on the problem (ie a
    ban/policing youth) or accept the results. It's tough to do the moral
    stance of banning smoking when the tobacco industry lines the coffers
    of political parties.                
    
    Sick - the little party put on by the Tobacco Companies at Parliament
    Hill. What a sick act of political vote swaying. I do not like the new
    law but this was totally out of hand.
    
                                         
    One question: Why do you think other advertisers will step forward to
    replace Tobacco companies sponsorships at sporting events? If other
    companies have not done so before, then why would they have the money 
    now to do so? This boggles me? 
    
                
    Sean
    
    
    

    >> One question: Why do you think other advertisers will step forward to
    >> replace Tobacco companies sponsorships at sporting events? If other
    >> companies have not done so before, then why would they have the
    >> money now to do so? This boggles me?
    
    Because, more and more companies are finally realizing that this form of
    advertising gives you more bang for your advertising dollars.  Did you
    read a newspaper this weekend?  Do you remember any of the adds that
    were in the paper?  I don't.  Are your eyes now trained to block out the 
    adds and find the articles that you care about?  Mine are.  Did you watch 
    any tv this weekend?  Did you, like me, reach for the remote control when 
    commercials came on?  When you watch a race, you can't block out the 
    advertising on the cars or on the roadway.  If you're watching a tennis 
    match, you can't block out the sponsor's/advertiser's name at each end of 
    the court.  The event organizers will now have to do a bit of selling,
    that's all.
    
    Bernie.  
    
    

    While I was at the laundromat yesterday someone turned on the
    Primestar 500, the first thing I noticed was the Golden Arches and the
    Tide ads all over a couple of the cars.
    
    
    joan

    Imagine that.  Laundry detergent adds on racing cars. Who would have
    thought that possible just 10 years ago!  Wait a minute,  you did say
    you were in the laundramat when you saw that!  Maybe they tricked you!
    Is the laundromat located next to McD? ;-)

Bernie,

I thought you had picked up your shorts and taken off on us
in this discussion?  Good to have you back.  Now I can pick
on you again...

/Mario

    Bernie,
    
    We don't have a McD's where I live :-)
    
    I am not a big fan of NASCAR and I do not know if any of the tobacco
    companies do or ever did sponser their cars but if they can get
    sponsorship from soap companies and fast food outlets why can't F1?
    
    
    joan
    

    go to your local library and get a copy of the book called "GM and The
    Nazis". General Motors struck many lucrative deals with the Nazis
    during the second world war; so my question is this: where is the
    moral/political opinion on this fact, assuming that we are dealing with
    what amounts to a moral/political question?
    
    since cigarette smokers are choosing to kill themselves, why do we
    bother the cigarette companies? they, like GM are only selling their
    product to willing and monied buyers--so whats the problem?
    
    we are plainly discussing the politics of some health crazed fascists
    out there who wish to form committees, eat business lunches, and
    organize 'no smoke' ins. 
    
    the fact is:
    
    if i want to smoke, and smokes are available--i will.
    if i want to run over a squirrel with tire of my 2000 lb automobile--i
    will.
    
    only when uptight "i think the world would be better if" types, start
    getting motivated to act, usually out of boredom and resentment for
    their own dreary worthless lives, do we begin to have a problem. 
    
    so all i can say to all the self-righteous non-smokers is: Wrap your
    lips around a warm tail-pipe and suck for all your worth!
    
    Mr.C.

    
    >  ......................................................., why do we
    >  bother the **** companies? they, like * are only selling their
    >  product to willing and monied buyers--so whats the problem?
    
    
    The problem, people like you and Harris and Klein who have no concern
    for anyone but themselves, and maybe their rich buddies, but then
    that's only to help themselves.
    
    

    I had a Big Mac last night and took one more step towards the grave.
    However, I resisted the virtually non-existent urge to light up and in
    so doing took one step back from the grave. So the net result was, I
    aged 7 minutes while I ate the burger.

    Gidday Mario,
    
    The discussion has strayed far enough from the original topic that I
    felt I could enter again ;-)  We are now discussing adverstising in
    general....aren't we?
    
    Bernie.

    Re. Selfish People
    
    How did Harris and Klein get invovled? I fail to see the relevance
    because a) Harris and Klein are elected (majority) b) have nothing to
    do with this cigarette debate and c) are not selfish, they are only 
    taking away some government handouts from selfish people (you perhaps?)
    who have been sucking off the system.
    
    I guess you can throw me into the "selfish people" category when I
    start spending my 30% tax cut. You on the other hand are welcome to
    give back your tax reduction. Perhaps common sense (love that slogan!)
    will start working on that Buffalo Bob socialist head of yours. I was
    also shocked to see you placing Wilson in the same category as Harris,
    do not do Mike that diservice. As you know Wilson is an anti-establishment,
    granola crunching, bike riding, tree hugging, illogical, irrational
    socialist. :-) Of course he will deny all knowledge of the above. 
    
    Back to the topic...
    
    Cigarettes kill you... Ban them or accept the responsibilities.
    Stick that in your pipe..
    
    Sean
                                  
    Ralph and Mike - 4 more years!
    
    
    
    
    
     
    

    cigarettes don't kill you, Mr. Meanie, smoking them does. there is a
    huge difference. your character analysis amuses me. 
    
    Mr. C.

    The Selfish Mr. Ralph Klein just received a huge selfish majority from
    the selfish people of Alberta. Klein was more selfish this election as
    as he took more seats this time around. I did see on the t.v., Klein
    and Harris standing together with Wilson in the middle, they were
    chanting 'Hail to the Selfish'
    
    Mr. Meanie to you...
    

    i think selfishness is a natural thing, if not a virtuous thing. at
    worst, totally selfish people become hermits, unwilling to give over
    any of themselves, even their image. to call Klein, or any public
    figure for that matter, selfish, is to miss the point of selfishness.
    public figures give themselves over to the public, that is altruistic,
    no? this is what i don't get: we buy tv's to watch tv people, buy the
    products advertised on tv, talk about people on tv, then we call them
    selfish just because they want our money more than we do, i just don't
    get it. 

    You do you raise an excellent point about public life. If one was to be
    selfish, why put yourself at the mercy of the public? This is why I am
    against doing away with the perks of an elected office. In doing so,
    the office only becomes attractive to the rich who have everything but
    the power they want.

    What does this have to do with smoking ads? Absolutely nothing.

From this morning's Toronto Sun:

Republished without permission, it's on the Web anyways...

Molson Indy in Canada goes up in smoke

                      By MIKE ZEISBERGER -- Toronto Sun 

  Gentlemen, stop your engines.

  The days of the highly successful Molson Indy events in Toronto
  and Vancouver appear to be over. 

  "The net effect is, the Molson Indys are dead after 1998," Molstar
  president Brent Scrimshaw confirmed yesterday.

  The fatal blow comes in the form of Bill C-71, which proposes harsh 
  restrictions on tobacco advertising. The bill is in the hands of the
  Senate right now.

  CART president Andrew Craig has said his racing series will not 
  compete in Canada under those conditions, since tobacco
sponsorship 
  of teams, cars and equipment is both omnipresent and vital.
  "No one wants to see the Molson Indys die, but it does indeed seem 
  to be a bleak situation," Craig said last night.
  Molstar officials have asked to state their case to the Senate in 
  two weeks. Unless an exemption could be made based on CART's
status 
  as an international series, however, the Molson Indys will be no more.


Is this a bluff, is it a threat or the truth?

/Mario

    " Molstar officials have asked to state their case to the Senate in
      two weeks..."
    
    It will be 'news' for 2 weeks and a day and then it will not be news.
    
    I'd call their bluff and I'd check up their sleeves too. They have 2
    years (2 more races?) to get their act together and find other
    methods/means. I can't imagine a good marketing company turning this
    down with the crowds/T.V coverage the races get. Me thinks they whine
    too much, too early

    I know the proposed law does not cover sporting events outside
    Canada, but what happens (for example) to U.S. cars that are sponsored by 
    American Tobacco companies that race in Canada? Are they exempt or are 
    they subject to the law? Anybody have the info? Do any racing cars have
    sponsors like this?
    
    Sean
    
    
    

    
    
    Since we're on the tobacco topic, what do you people think about the
    Cornwall women who was fined $210 for buying cigarettes for her son?
	
    Like the article in saturday's citizen points out, her son is 18 years
    of age and was six days short of his 19 birthday, when the incident
    happened.
    
    M. 
    
    
    
    
    

    The mother was stupid.

    
    I don't know why anyone in Cornwall would buy cigarettes
    from a *store*.
    
    8*)
    /Pat

    Ya!
    
    Better prices from those skidoo trailers!

    What happened to all the Do-gooder smoke banners around here.. Can
    anyone answer my previous question????
    
    If the kid is 18 yrs old (like the one the mother was arrested for)
    then I do not think she should be charged. The following is a cliche
    but the logic holds true. Being eighteen you can vote, join the military,
    fight for the country and maybe even die, get married, and create life. 
    So why can you do all these things legally but when it comes to having 
    a smoke or a beer, then it is hands off. It is called hyprocracy...
    
    Sean
     

    What happened to all the well informed do-gooder smoke haters around
    here??? Can anyone answer my previous question or has this topic
    stopped being the flavour of the day???
    
    If a teenager is 18 yrs old (like the one the mother was arrested for)
    then I do not think she should be charged. The following is a cliche,
    but the logic still holds true. Being 18 yrs old, you can vote, join
    the military/police, fight for the country or laws and maybe even die
    in the process, get married, and have a child. So why can you make all
    these so called adult decision at 18 or even less (married and having a
    child) legally but when it comes to having a smoke or a beer, then it
    is hands off until you are older. I think at 18 you can decide if you
    want to smoke. 
    
    Sean

    Most people think otherwise, as reflected by the laws.

    Re. -1
    
    
    The answer is moot...
    

    No, it's not, the answer is fact. Society has decided so. If our
    society feels otherwise, the laws will change to reflect how it feels.
    Much like the change in laws regarding sexuality.

    And much like we have changed the laws towards Capital Punishment?
    Please explain this one. Last poll by Stats Can. saw a 67% rate in
    favour of Capital Punishment, so why isn't it law. Tell me again how
    society wanted smoke prices reduced? We live in a pluralistic society
    not a straight democracy, that why we have A.A./E.E programs which are
    not favoured by the majority. So once again, the answer is moot. Give
    me another answer mooter.
    
    Sean

    same sex couples have access to spousal benefits.

    Re. -1
    
    Same sex couples do not have access legally to spousal benefits. 
    Presently,there is no law covering same sex rights/marriage. The Federal
    Government fought and won before the Supreme Court in Egan and 
    Nesbitt vs. The Queen against recognition of same sex spousal rights
    (OAS). The challenges so far have been on the basis of discrimination 
    before the The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By law the only way a
    same sex couple can receive spousal benefits is if the company they are
    working for opts for coverage. The detemining factor is the Federal law
    on what defines a traditional marriage, which currently does not include 
    same sex marriages. Until this law is changed, the provincial governments 
    cannot pass legislation making same sex couples availiable for spousal
    benefits.
    
    Funny how this jumped from the Tobacco topic.
    
    Sean

    Well, from what I understand most companies are already doing
    this. It's just a mater of time. The point I'm making is, 20 years ago,
    this wasn't even a consideration. Times change, opinions change. As far
    as smoking goes, it will become increasingly difficult to enjoy
    smoking. pretty soon, the only place you'll be able to do it is on
    private property. It's coming. Our society has deemed smoking as
    harmful and regardless of the smokers' protestations, they will be
    facing more restrictions.

    perhaps in a couple of centuries, historians will be looking at smoking
    as a twentieth century phenomenon and wondering why it went on so long.

    
    (just to try to tie it all together) what will couples (same-sex or
    otherwise) do after sex if they can't have a smoke?
    

    
    Enter a few notes together?
    

    I wish the government would just ban it.
    
    Sean
    

    No Smokes=No Sex???
    
    This is a good reason not to ban smoking.
    
    Sean
    

    According to this mornings papers, the law of smoking only in 
    enclosed rooms in bars and restaurants in TO. may be going by the wayside.
    This will be looked into on Monday and if they can't come up with a better
    idea, there will be no ban on smoking at all in those places.
    
    joan

    I just came back from a two week holiday in California (San Jose and
    LA) and one of the first things I noticed was that we were never asked
    if we wanted to sit in smoking or non-smoking.  Why?  Because there was
    no smoking in any of the restaurants we went to.  (Don't know about the
    bars.  We were never in places that were considered bar only).  Anyhow,
    the restaurants were all pretty full.  I think it's a time factor
    thing.  Once the law has been in place for (6 months? a year?), you
    won't even notice it anymore.  Kind of like when you go to a movie
    theatre - you wouldn't even think about lighting up there, but there
    was a time not that long ago that you were allowed to smoke in the
    theatres.

    I see they have done another side step, now if you own a race car you
    can advertise, I wish they would make up their minds and get it over
    with, either they can advertise every where or not at all.
     Or is that too simple for our esteemed politicians to grasp.
                                                    
    
    joan

    I think they said if you have a race car with tabacco advertising you
    will be able to drive it in a race in Canada after they change the law. 
    This is a lot different than "you can advertise" as in you can become
    the name sponsor of an event.
    
    I'd outright ban all tabacco products if I could, but I think this is a
    reasonable compromise to shut up the big league race organizers that
    claim they couldn't put on an event under the new law.

    I see, the news report I heard on the radio gave the impession that all
    tobacco advertising at races was legal.
    
    I guess thats means the screen saver I am running is politically correct
    now :-)
    
    
    
    
    joan